Search

The appropriate stent platform for treating coronary bifurcation lesions (CBLs) remains controversial. Previous bench tests have demonstrated the superiority of a 2-link cell design to 3-link cell design for creating inter-strut dilation at the side branch ostium. This randomized multicenter prospective BEGIN trial compared the biodegradable polymer-based biolimus A9-eluting stent (2-link BES) with the durable polymer-based cobalt chromium everolimus-eluting stent (3-link EES) in 226 patients with de novo CBLs. Patients with true bifurcations, defined as > 50% stenosis in the main vessel and side branch (SB) and an SB diameter > 2.25 mm, were enrolled. Guide wire re-crossing to the distal cell (near the carina) in the jailed SB and final kissing inflation were recommended. The SB angiographic endpoint was < 50% stenosis diameter. Left-main CBLs (13.5% vs. 13.0%) and 2-stent technique (30.6% vs. 22.6%) rates were similar. The primary endpoints (minimum lumen diameter at the SB ostium measured at an independent core laboratory at the 8-month follow-up) were comparable (1.64 ± 0.50 mm vs. 1.63 ± 0.51 mm, p = 0.976). There was no significant difference in composite outcomes of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vascular revascularization at 12 months (7.4% vs. 8.0%, p = 0.894). Two-link BES and 3-link EES showed similar 8-month angiographic and 1-year clinical outcomes for true CBLs.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare 7-year outcomes between the first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and the new-generation everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in a randomized clinical trial., Background: There is a scarcity of very long-term (beyond 5 years) data from clinical trials investigating whether new-generation drug-eluting stents have clear clinical advantages over first-generation drug-eluting stents., Methods: RESET (Randomized Evaluation of Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent Trial) is the largest randomized trial comparing EES with SES (NCT01035450). Among a total of 3,197 patients in the original RESET population from 100 centers, the present extended 7-year follow-up study was conducted in 2,667 patients from 75 centers after excluding those patients enrolled from centers that denied participation. Complete 7-year follow-up was achieved in 91.5% of patients., Results: The cumulative 7-year incidence of the primary efficacy endpoint of target lesion revascularization was not significantly different between EES and SES (10.2% vs. 11.7%; hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% confidence interval: 0.68 to 1.10; p = 0.24). The risk for the primary safety endpoint of death or myocardial infarction trended lower with EES than with SES (20.6% vs. 23.6%; hazard ratio: 0.85; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.005; p = 0.06). The cumulative 7-year incidence of definite stent thrombosis was very low and similar between EES and SES (0.9% vs. 1.0%; p = 0.82). The lower risk of EES relative to SES was significant for the composite secondary endpoint of target lesion failure (13.3% vs. 18.1%; hazard ratio: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.59 to 0.88; p = 0.001)., Conclusions: During 7 years of follow-up, the risk for target lesion revascularization was not significantly different between the new-generation EES and the first-generation SES., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous intravascular ultrasound studies suggested the association of stent underexpansion with increased risk of stent thrombosis and restenosis. However, no previous study has addressed the association of the suboptimal angiographic result with target-lesion revascularization (TLR) in patients receiving new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES)., Methods and Results: RESET (Randomized evaluation of sirolimus-eluting versus everolimus-eluting stent trial) and NEXT (NOBORI biolimus-eluting versus XIENCE/PROMUS everolimus-eluting stent trial) are prospective, multicenter, randomized "DES versus DES" trials; 3196 patients and 3235 patients were enrolled in the RESET and NEXT, respectively. Using the pooled individual patient-level data, the current study population consisted of 3679 patients who received single-lesion treatment using new-generation DES such as everolimus-eluting stent and biolimus-eluting stent. The study population was divided into 3 groups according to the residual in-stent % diameter stenosis (%DS) after stent implantation by offline quantitative coronary angiography assessed in a core angiographic laboratory (optimal group: %DS <10%, intermediate group: %DS=10% to 20%, suboptimal group: %DS ≧20%). The cumulative 3-year incidence of TLR was significantly higher in the suboptimal group than in the intermediate and optimal groups (9.8% versus 5.8% versus 5.7%, log-rank P =0.004). Even after adjusting for the clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics, the excess TLR risk of the suboptimal group relative to the optimal group remained significant (hazard ratio: 1.65, 95% confidence interval, 1.14-2.41, P =0.009). The excess TLR risk of the suboptimal group relative to the optimal group was consistently seen across all the subgroups including heavy calcification., Conclusions: The residual angiographic in-stent %DS ≥20% was associated with increased risk for TLR in patients treated with the new-generation DES., (© 2018 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.)

Background: The comparative efficacy of second-generation (G2) vs. first-generation (G1) drug-eluting stents (DES) for calcified coronary lesions is unknown.Methods and Results:We compared the 3-year clinical outcomes of patients with G1- or G2-DES according to the presence or absence of calcified coronary lesions as assessed in an angiographic core laboratory using data from 2 large-scale prospective multicenter randomized trials, RESET and NEXT. G1-DES and G2-DES were implanted in 299 and 1,033 patients, respectively, in the Calc stratum (≥1 lesion with moderate/severe calcification), and 1,208 and 3,550 patients, respectively, in the Non-calc stratum (no/mild calcification). The patients in the Calc stratum had a significantly higher adjusted risk for the primary outcome measure (any target-lesion revascularization (TLR)) than those in the Non-calc stratum (HR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.11-1.71, P=0.004). The cumulative 3-year incidence of any TLR was not significantly different between the G1-DES and G2-DES groups in both the Calc and Non-calc strata (12.1% vs. 9.7%, P=0.22, and 6.8% vs. 6.1%, P=0.44, respectively). After adjusting for confounders, the effect of G2DES relative to G1-DES for any TLR remained insignificant in both the Calc and Non-calc strata (HR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.48-1.25, P=0.3, and HR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.61-1.17, P=0.31, respectively, P interaction=0.55)., Conclusions: The effect of G2-DES relative to G1-DES for TLR was not significantly different regardless of the presence or absence of lesion calcification.

Background: There is a paucity of data reporting the clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BP-BES) compared with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) beyond 1 year after stent implantation when the polymer is fully degraded., Methods and Results: The NOBORI Biolimus-Eluting Versus XIENCE/PROMUS Everolimus-Eluting Stent Trial (NEXT) is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial comparing BP-BES with DP-EES in patients scheduled for percutaneous coronary intervention using drug-eluting stent (DES) without any exclusion criteria among 98 participating centers in Japan. The trial was designed to evaluate noninferiority of BP-BES relative to DP-EES in terms of any target-lesion revascularization at 1 year and death or myocardial infarction at 3 years. Between May and October 2011, 3235 patients were randomly assigned to receive either BP-BES (1617 patients) or DP-EES (1618 patients). Complete 3-year follow-up was achieved in 97.6% of patients. At 3 years, the primary safety end point of death or myocardial infarction occurred in 159 patients (9.9%) in the BP-BES group and in 166 patients (10.3%) in the DP-EES group, demonstrating noninferiority of BP-BES relative to DP-EES (P noninferiority<0.0001 and P superiority=0.7). Cumulative incidence of target-lesion revascularization was not significantly different between the 2 groups (7.4% versus 7.1%; P=0.8). By a landmark analysis at 1 year, the cumulative incidences of death or myocardial infarction and target-lesion revascularization were also not significantly different between the 2 groups (4.6% versus 5.2%; P=0.46 and 3.3% versus 2.7%; P=0.39, respectively)., Conclusions: Safety and efficacy outcomes of BP-BES were non inferior to those of DP-EES 3 years after stent implantation., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01303640., (© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Long-term clinical outcomes of everolimus-eluting stent (EES) compared with sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) have not been evaluated fully yet, especially whether EES implantation could positively affect late adverse events reported after SES implantation occurring >1 year., Methods and Results: In this all-comer prospective multicenter randomized open-label trial, 3196 patients were assigned randomly to implant either EES (n=1596) or SES (n=1600). At 3 years, EES was noninferior to SES on the primary safety end point (all-cause death or myocardial infarction; 10.1% versus 11.5%; noninferiority P <0.001; and superiority P=0.19). Cumulative incidence of definite stent thrombosis was low and was not significantly different between the 2 groups (0.5% versus 0.6%; P=0.81). There was no significant difference in the efficacy end point of target-lesion revascularization between the EES and SES groups (6.6% versus 7.9%; P=0.16). However, the cumulative incidence of target-lesion failure (cardiac death/target-vessel myocardial infarction/ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization) was significantly lower in the EES group than in the SES group (8.8% versus 11.4%; P=0.01). By a landmark analysis at 1 year, the cumulative incidence of very late stent thrombosis and late target-lesion revascularization was not significantly different between the 2 groups (0.2% versus 0.2%; P=0.99 and 2.2% versus 2.9%; P=0.21, respectively)., Conclusions: The efficacy and safety outcomes for this trial after EES implantation remained comparable with those after SES implantation through 3-year follow-up. However, improvement of clinical outcome after EES implantation compared with SES implantation was suggested by the significantly lower cumulative incidences of target-lesion failure, which has been the most widely used primary end point in the stent-versus-stent trials., Clinical Trial Registration Url: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035450., (© 2014 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Objectives: NEXT (NOBORI Biolimus-Eluting Versus XIENCE/PROMUS Everolimus-Eluting Stent Trial) was designed for evaluating the noninferiority of a biolimus-eluting stent (BES) relative to an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in terms of target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 1 year., Background: Efficacy and safety data comparing biodegradable polymer BES with durable polymer cobalt-chromium EES are currently limited., Methods: The NEXT trial is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial comparing BES with EES. Between May and October 2011, 3,235 patients were randomly assigned to receive either BES (n = 1,617) or EES (n = 1,618)., Results: At 1 year, the primary efficacy endpoint of TLR occurred in 67 patients (4.2%) in the BES group, and in 66 patients (4.2%) in the EES group, demonstrating noninferiority of BES relative to EES (p for noninferiority <0.0001, and p for superiority = 0.93). Cumulative incidence of definite stent thrombosis was low and similar between the 2 groups (0.25% vs. 0.06%, p = 0.18). An angiographic substudy enrolling 528 patients (BES: n = 263, and EES: n = 265) demonstrated noninferiority of BES relative to EES regarding the primary angiographic endpoint of in-segment late loss (0.03 ± 0.39 mm vs. 0.06 ± 0.45 mm, p for noninferiority <0.0001, and p for superiority = 0.52) at 266 ± 43 days after stent implantation., Conclusions: One-year clinical and angiographic outcome after BES implantation was noninferior to and not different from that after EES implantation in a mostly stable coronary artery disease population. One-year clinical outcome after both BES and EES use was excellent, with a low rate of TLR and extremely low rate of stent thrombosis., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)